Week 18 Reflection: Reflecting on changes in my future orientated teaching practice.

Describe: What were you thinking and Feeling?

With reference to the Executive Summary of “Supporting future-orientated learning and teaching A New Zealand Perspective” (Bolstad, Bilber, McDowall, Bull, Boyd & Hipkins, 2012), I have chosen to elaborate on one them that I think resonates really well with my reflection theme 4” Changing the script": Rethinking learners' and teachers' roles and Thoughout my mindlab journey I have really come to terms with using technology effectively in the classroom and in my previous assignments I have mentioned that technology can only be effective when it is used for learning purposes. Many of my students are technologically literate in some shape or form but this does mean they know how to use the technologcal tool effectively to help them understand new learning concepts and really show me that they truely understand what we are learning. The real questions for me was do I myself know how to use a technological tool to learn? How do I know I can use the tool to learn effectively? Do I know enough about using a technological tool properlly? And  is there any way that can indicate to me that I am using the technological tool to learn? These were the questions that I was pondering over because If I can use the tool to learn and understand learning situations better then it would be eaiser to scaffold my students in using their tools effectively as well. My Main goal and focus was support my students in understanding howuse the technological tool effecively so they can to shred light on their understandings to learning not just using the tool as a substitute for their exercise book. 

Feelings: What were you thinking and feeling?

At first I was really excited to implement a framwork that could indicate whether students are using the technology as effectively as they can for learning. The SAMR model has four stages of technological efficientcy, Substition, Augmentation, modification and redefinition. Each level or stage requires a higher demand for usage of technological tool. It seemed like the perfect framwork for my students to use to identify where they are at with using a technological tool and justify why they are at that level of the SAMR model. Before I even introduced this framework I felt that a handful of my students were operating at a modification level because their functionality of the tool was surprisingly good. They were sharing documents and commenting on others work as well as adding picture and videos to there documents. This Framework really help my students understand that using technological tool in a learning setting is different from using it for entertainment. I also felt that this also encouraged student Agency where they started to identify themselves where they are at on the SAMR model and explain why they thought they were at that particular stage. 

Evaluation: What was good and what was bad about my experience of making these changes?

The best part of this change was the fact that my students were able to identify together with the teacher that we are all operating at an augmentation level of the SAMR framework. We understood this because we only had knowledge about some functional change when using a device e.g. we were able to share documentation and comment on others work by providing feedback and feedforward. My students were motivated to move away from augmentation to modification stage and made it their sole purpose to do so. This promoted students agency where my students made it their goal to move up to a modification stage of the SAMR model. This framework really help with constructing learning for my students where they were able to make adjustments with the knowledge they already had about using a technology tool. Piget argues that where knowledge is seen as “constructed” through a process of taking actions in one’s environment and making adjustments to existing knowledge structures based on the outcome of those actions.One of the barriers that stood in our way was fully understanding the Modification level and what this meant for my students. 

Analysis: What Sense can you make of the situation?

I can confidently state that it is wonderful to see my students be able to use the SAMR frameowork to help them understand where they are in unsing a technologial tool. I asked myself do I know enough about the modification level? What do I need to understand therefore do in order to help my students understand the shift from an augmenatation to a modification level. Was letting my students explore their own choices to learning where “anything goes” as longs as it works the best approach? According to (Bolstad, Bilber, McDowall, Bull, Boyd & Hipkins, 2012), its not really aboutteachers ceding all the power and responsibility to students, or students and teachers being “equal” as learners. Rather, it is about structuring roles and relationships in ways that draw on the strengths and knowledge of each in order to best support learning.

Conclusion and Action Plan.

First of all I am grateful that I am apart of the mindlab journey because I have developed an understanding of how technology can be used in class to enhance student engagment and student achievement. My next plan would be to gain a better understanding around the modification and redefinition stage of the SAMR model so this becomes clearer not only for me the teacher but also my students who are already showing signs of using their technological tool effectively to learn. I believe that students should be drivers of their learning where they fully have ownership of their where they take risks, make their own choices and learn from their mistakes. I really love the statement drawn by (Bolstad, Bilber, McDowall, Bull, Boyd & Hipkins, 2012), The challenge is to move past seeing learning in terms of being “student-centered” or “teacher-driven”, and instead to think about how learners and teachers would work together in a “knowledge-building” learning environment. Working collaboratively is a way forward and understanding what this looks like and how this is driven in a class would be very effective in future learning. 

Reference List

Bolstad, R., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting future-oriented learning and teaching — a New Zealand perspective. Report prepared for the Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/109306